Calvin, Institutes, Vol.2, Part 14
(... continued from part 13)
Chapter 13.
13. Christ clothed with the true substance of human nature.
The heads of this chapter are, I. The orthodoxy doctrine as to
the true humanity of our Saviour, proved from many passages of
Scripture, sec. 1. II. Refutation of the impious objections of the
Marcionites, Manichees, and similar heretics, sec. 2-4.
Sections.
1. Proof of the true humanity of Christ, against the Manichees and
Marcionites.
2. Impious objections of heretics further discussed. Six objections
answered.
3. Other eight objections answered.
1. Of the divinity of Christ, which has elsewhere been
established by clear and solid proofs, I presume it were superfluous
again to treat. It remains, therefore, to see how, when clothed with
our flesh, he fulfilled the office of Mediator. In ancient times,
the reality of his human nature was impugned by the Manichees and
Marcionites, the latter figuring to themselves a phantom instead of
the body of Christ, and the former dreaming of his having been
invested with celestial flesh. The passages of Scripture
contradictory to both are numerous and strong. The blessing is not
promised in a heavenly seed, or the mask of a man, but the seed of
Abraham and Jacob; nor is the everlasting throne promised to an
aerial man, but to the Son of David, and the fruit of his loins.
Hence, when manifested in the flesh, he is called the Son of David
and Abraham, not because he was born of a virgin, and yet created in
the air, but because, as Paul explains, he was "made of the seed of
David, according to the flesh," (Rom. 1: 3,) as the same apostle
elsewhere says, that he came of the Jews, (Rom. 9: 5.) Wherefore,
our Lord himself not contented with the name of man, frequently
calls himself the Son of man, wishing to express more clearly that
he was a man by true human descent. The Holy Spirit having so often,
by so many organs, with so much care and plainness, declared a
matter which in itself is not abstruse, who could have thought that
mortals would have had the effrontery to darken it with their
glosses? Many other passages are at hand, were it wished to produce
more: for instance, that one of Paul, that "God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman," (Gal. 4: 4,) and innumerable others, which show
that he was subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and the other
infirmities of our nature. But from the many we must chiefly select
those which may conduce to build up our minds in true faith, as when
it is said, "Verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but he
took on him the seed of Abraham," "that through death he might
destroy him that had the power of death," (Heb. 2: 16, 14.) Again,
"Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of
one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."
"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest."
(Heb. 2: 11, 17.) Again "We have not an high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities," (Heb. 4: 15,) and the
like. To the same effect is the passage to which we lately referred,
in which Paul distinctly declares, that the sins of the world
behoved to be expiated in our flesh, (Rom. 8: 3.) And certainly
every thing which the Father conferred on Christ pertains to us for
this reason, that "he is the head," that from him the whole body is
"fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth," (Eph. 4: 16.) Nay, in no other way could it hold true as
is said, that the Spirit was given to him without measure, (John 1:
16,) and that out of his fulness have all we received; since nothing
could be more absurd than that God, in his own essence, should be
enriched by an adventitious gift. For this reason also, Christ
himself elsewhere says, "For their sakes I sanctify myself," (John
17: 19.)
2. The passages which they produce in confirmation of their
error are absurdly wrested, nor do they gain any thing by their
frivolous subtleties when they attempt to do away with what I have
now adduced in opposition to them. Marcion imagines that Christ,
instead of a body, assumed a phantom, because it is elsewhere said,
that he was made in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a
man. Thus he altogether overlooks what Paul is then discussing,
(Philip. 2: 7.) His object is not to show what kind of body Christ
assumed, but that, when he might have justly asserted his divinity
he was pleased to exhibit nothing but the attributes of a mean and
despised man. For, in order to exhort us to submission by his
example, he shows, that when as God he might have displayed to the
world the brightness of his glory, he gave up his right, and
voluntarily emptied himself; that he assumed the form of a servant,
and, contented with that humble condition, suffered his divinity to
be concealed under a veil of flesh. Here, unquestionably, he
explains not what Christ was, but in what way he acted. Nay, from
the whole context it is easily gathered, that it was in the true
nature of man that Christ humbled himself. For what is meant by the
words, he was "found in fashion as a man," but that for a time,
instead of being resplendent with divine glory, the human form only
appeared in a mean and abject condition? Nor would the words of
Peter, that he was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirits" (1 Pet. 3: 18,) hold true, unless the Son of God had become
weak in the nature of man. This is explained more clearly by Paul,
when he declares that "he was crucified through weakness," (2 Cor.
13: 4.) And hence his exaltation; for it is distinctly said, that
Christ acquired new glory after he humbled himself. This could fitly
apply only to a man endued with a body and a soul. Manes dreams of
an aerial body, because Christ is called the second Adam, the Lord
from heaven. But the apostle does not there speak of the essence of
his body as heavenly, but of the spiritual life which derived from
Christ quickens us, (I Cor. 15: 47.) This life Paul and Peter, as we
have seen, separate from his flesh. Nay, that passage admirably
confirms the doctrine of the orthodox, as to the human nature of
Christ. If his body were not of the same nature with ours, there
would be no soundness in the argument which Paul pursues with so
much earnestness, - If Christ is risen we shall rise also; if we
rise not, neither has Christ risen. Whatever be the cavils by which
the ancient Manichees, or their modern disciples, endeavour to evade
this, they cannot succeed. It is a frivolous and despicable evasion
to say, that Christ is called the Son of man, because he was
promised to men; it being obvious that, in the Hebrew idiom, the Son
of man means a true man: and Christ, doubtless, retained the idiom
of his own tongue. Moreover, there cannot be a doubt as to what is
to be understood by the sons of Adam. Not to go farther, a passage
in the eighth psalm, which the apostles apply to Christ, will
abundantly suffice: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and
the son of man, that thou visitest him.?" (Pa 8: 4.) Under this
figure is expressed the true humanity of Christ. For although he was
not immediately descended of an earthly father, yet he originally
sprang from Adam. Nor could it otherwise be said in terms of the
passage which we have already quoted, "Forasmuch, then, as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise
took part of the same;" these words plainly proving that he was an
associate and partner in the same nature with ourselves. In this
sense also it is said, that "both he that sanctifieth and they who
are sanctified are all of one." The context proves that this refers
to a community of nature; for it is immediately added, "For which
cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren," (Heb. 2: 11.) Had he
said at first that believers are of God, where could there have been
any ground for being ashamed of persons possessing such dignity? But
when Christ of his boundless grace associates himself with the mean
and ignoble, we see why it was said that "he is not ashamed." It is
vain to object, that in this way the wicked will be the brethren of
Christ; for we know that the children of God are not born of flesh
and blood, but of the Spirit through faith. Therefore, flesh alone
does not constitute the union of brotherhood. But although the
apostle assigns to believers only the honour of being one with
Christ, it does not however follow, that unbelievers have not the
same origin according to the flesh; just as when we say that Christ
became man, that he might make us sons of God, the expression does
not extend to all classes of persons; the intervention of faith
being necessary to our being spiritually ingrafted into the body of
Christ. A dispute is also ignorantly raised as to the term
first-born. It is alleged that Christ ought to have been the first
son of Adam, in order that he might be the first-born among the
brethren, (Rom. 8: 29.) But primogeniture refers not to age, but to
degree of honour and pre-eminence of virtue. There is just as little
colour for the frivolous assertion that Christ assumed the nature of
man, and not that of angels, (Heb. 2: 16,) because it was the human
race that he restored to favour. The apostle, to magnify the honour
which Christ has conferred upon us, contrasts us with the angels, to
whom we are in this respect preferred. And if due weight is given to
the testimony of Moses, (Gen. 3: 15,) when he says that the seed of
the woman would bruise the head of the serpent, the dispute is at an
end. For the words there used refer not to Christ alone, but to the
whole human race. Since the victory was to be obtained for us by
Christ, God declares generally, that the posterity of the woman
would overcome the devil. From this it follows, that Christ is a
descendant of the human race, the purpose of God in thus addressing
Eve being to raise her hopes, and prevent her from giving way to
despair.
3. The passages in which Christ is called the seed of Abraham,
and the fruit of the loins of David, those persons, with no less
folly than wickedness, wrap up in allegory. Had the term seed been
used allegorically, Paul surely would not have omitted to notice it,
when he affirms clearly, and without figure, that the promise was
not given "to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
which is Christ," (Gal. 3: 16.) With similar absurdity they pretend
that he was called the Son of David for no other reason but because
he had been promised, and was at length in due time manifested. For
Paul, after he had called him the Son of David, by immediately
subjoining "according to the flesh", certainly designates his
nature. So also, (Rom. 9: 5,) while declaring him to be "God blessed
for ever," he mentions separately, that, "as concerning the flesh,
he was descended from the Jews." Again if he had not been truly
begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of the
expression, that he is the "fruit of his loins;" or what the meaning
of the promise, "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne"? (Ps. 132: 11.) Moreover their mode of dealing with the
genealogy of Christ, as given by Matthew, is mere sophistry; for
though he reckons up the progenitors not of Mary, but of Joseph, yet
as he was speaking of a matter then generally understood, he deems
it enough to show that Joseph was descended from the seed of David,
since it is certain that Mary was of the same family. Luke goes
still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is
common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of
salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all. I
confess, indeed, that the genealogy proves Christ to be the Son of
David only as being descended of the Virgin; but the new
Marcionites, for the purpose of giving a gloss to their heresy,
namely to prove that the body which Christ assumed was
unsubstantial, too confidently maintain that the expression as to
seed is applicable only to males, thus subverting the elementary
principles of nature. But as this discussion belongs not to
theology, and the arguments which they adduce are too futile to
require any laboured refutation, I will not touch on matters
pertaining to philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient
to dispose of the objection drawn from the statement of Scripture,
that Aaron and Jehoiadah married wives out of the tribe of Judah,
and that thus the distinction of tribes was confounded, if proper
descent could come through the female. It is well known, that in
regard to civil order, descent is reckoned through the male; and yet
the superiority on his part does not prevent the female from having
her proper share in the descent. This solution applies to all the
genealogies. When Scripture gives a list of individuals, it often
mentions males only. Must we therefore say that females go for
nothing? Nay, the very children know that they are classified with
men. For this reasons wives are said to give children to their
husbands, the name of the family always remaining with the males.
Then, as the male sex has this privilege, that sons are deemed of
noble or ignoble birth, according to the condition of their fathers,
so, on the other hand, in slavery, the condition of the child is
determined by that of the mother, as lawyers say, partus sequitur
ventrem. Whence we may infer, that offspring is partly procreated by
the seed of the mother. According to the common custom of nations,
mothers are deemed progenitors, and with this the divine law agrees,
which could have had no ground to forbid the marriage of the uncle
with the niece, if there was no consanguinity between them. It would
also be lawful for a brother and sister uterine to intermarry, when
their fathers are different. But while I admit that the power
assigned to the woman is passive, I hold that the same thing is
affirmed indiscriminately of her and of the male. Christ is not said
to have been made by a woman, but of a woman, (Gal. 4: 4.) But some
of this herd, laying aside all shame, publicly ask whether we mean
to maintain that Christ was procreated of the proper seed of a
virgin. I, in my turn, asks whether they are not forced to admit
that he was nourished to maturity in the Virgin's womb. Justly,
therefore, we infer from the words of Matthew, that Christ, inasmuch
as he was begotten of Mary, was procreated of her seed; as a similar
generation is denoted when Boaz is said to have been begotten of
Rachab, (Matth. 1: 5, 16.) Matthew does not here describe the Virgin
as the channel through which Christ flowed, but distinguishes his
miraculous from an ordinary birth, in that Christ was begotten by
her of the seed of David. For the same reason for which Isaac is
said to be begotten of Abraham, Joseph of Jacob, Solomon of David,
is Christ said to have been begotten of his mother. The Evangelist
has arranged his discourse in this way. Wishing to prove that Christ
derives his descent from David, he deems it enough to state, that he
was begotten of Mary. Hence it follows, that he assumed it as an
acknowledged fact, that Mary was of the same lineage as Joseph.
4. The absurdities which they wish to fasten upon us are mere
puerile calumnies. They reckon it base and dishonouring to Christ to
have derived his descent from men; because, in that case, he could
not be exempted from the common law which includes the whole
offspring of Adam, without exception, under sin. But this difficulty
is easily solved by Paul's antithesis, "As by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin" - "even so by the righteousness of
one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life,"
(Rom. 5: 12, 18.) Corresponding to this is another passage, "The
first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from
heaven," (1 Cor. 15: 47.) Accordingly, the same apostle, in another
passage, teaching that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful
flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,"
distinctly separates him from the common lot, as being true man, and
yet without fault and corruption, (Rom. 8: 3.) It is childish
trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was
begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit,
it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only
that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint,
merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but
because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was
pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall.
Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the
purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were
superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of
which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the
divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold seed in
Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation
of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental
circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by
whom our integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common
corruption. Another absurdity which they obtrude upon us, viz., that
if the Word of God became incarnate, it must have been enclosed in
the narrow tenement of an earthly body, is sheer petulance. For
although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human
nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of
God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning
heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin's
womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always
filled the world as from the beginning.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, Part 14
(continued in part 15...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04: cvin2-14.txt
.
